Related

Blame the media? Blame his illness? Blame even the
tsunami? The key issue was Mark Latham's leadership.

Mark Latham's exit was entirely in character and thus revealing
about the political tragedy that his brief leadership of the Labor
Party turned out to be. As one Labor frontbencher observed, it was
a case of "everyone's fault but mine - I'm out of here". Equally
revealing was the number of issues Mr Latham did not even
acknowledge. He said nothing of mistakes or of responsibility for
the fractured Labor Party; he gave no indication he understood the
onerous obligations of political leadership or understood even now
what had happened. A large part of his speech was a condemnation of
the "media frenzy" on which he thrived while his approval ratings
were at record highs. Mr Latham stopped just short of blaming the
media for having to resign. He couldn't, given his confirmation of
the gravity of health problems he had tried to conceal.

It is a personal tragedy for a family man of 43 to suffer a
dangerous, recurring illness such as pancreatitis. As a private
citizen, he is now entitled to his privacy - although all
Australians would wish him a full recovery. It is a sad misfortune
for Labor, too, to have lost a talented parliamentarian of great
energy and many ideas (good and bad). His ability to set agendas
even from opposition drove the reforms he cited - parliamentary
superannuation, the US trade agreement, immunisation and baby
payments. The elevation of "soft politics" issues such as early
childhood development may be his enduring contribution. But Labor
elected Mr Latham to achieve two main goals. The first was
ambitious: to win government, or at least hold the line. Labor went
backwards. His second job was to unite the party, so it worked as a
team on developing and promoting policy. His inability to do so is
summed up by two defining moments: his unilateral decisions on
pulling troops out of Iraq by Christmas and the election-eve
forests policy.

Although it is now clear Mr Latham was distracted by illness,
the flaws in his leadership were exposed before then. Prime
Minister John Howard's opening election gambit - "Who do you
trust?" - hit home for a reason. After the defeat, as frontbenchers
fell in bloody recriminations, Mr Latham was silent for a week
before answering his critics. His recent behaviour was not a
one-off aberration brought on by media pressure. His 13-month
tenure confirmed he wasn't ready for the responsibility of leading
the nation, and perhaps never would be.